NY Common Law Grand Jury – Foiled again 04/07/2014

Gatsby reports on the Fogbow how the NY “Common Law Grand Jury” has run into some predictable road blocks

After starting off by reciting two Bible verses, the National Liberty Alliance leaders moved onto their latest failed caper in NLA’s weekly conference call. This time, a prosecutor they met with on Monday refused to force a court clerk to file the NLA’s document that “summons” judges and clerks into a New York county courtroom. This was the big event originally scheduled for April 7, but then pushed back to April 22, which the NLA now says won’t happen until possibly later that week.

One leader said they would talk about strategy during the call, but another countered that they won’t because it would provide intel to those opposing the formation of common-law grand juries. :roll: I’ve only listened to the first five minutes of the call so far, but I’m sure there are more entertaining nuggets ahead.

They do not even understand judicial precedent. ROTFL… And the most conservative guy said he could not intervene… So he has a problem…

They don’t know what else to do… ROTFL… So projecting… They have no idea how to respond and are hoping for miracles… Ain’t gonna happen.

It’s funny to see them organize their little knitting club and exercise their right to petition, however the right does not mean that the Court will have to listen to their musings.

9 thoughts on “NY Common Law Grand Jury – Foiled again 04/07/2014

  1. Please consider discussion on the topic, in writing, as your version of the actual events are at best colorful, at worst a coverup for documented criminals who are currently adding to their list of crimes. Please consider learning something, anything, about our rich history of common law. I can help you if you prefer competitive accurate accounting over colorful deception. Refusal to engage in open discussion will be an answer to my challenge offer to you.

  2. The history of common law is interesting especially since the Supreme Court has observed the general fact that there is no Federal Common Law.

    Furthemore, common law can be overridden by the legislature.

    So if the legislature decides to abandon the grand jury or set specific requirements, then this will override the common law, especially since the Grand Jury clause was not incorporated into the states.

    So, the concept of a common law grand jury runs against our judicial and legislative system.

    Of course at the federal level the Grand Jury continues to exist, and is guided by the rules of the Court and Congress.
    Again there is little room for a common law grand jury.

  3. Please consider discussion on the topic, in writing, as your version of the actual events are at best colorful, at worst a coverup for documented criminals who are currently adding to their list of crimes.

    Nope, they are just colorful. The failure to understand the rules of the court, our Constitution and the federal statutes has led many a person down a path of foolishness. The sovereign citizen movement, that anti-tax movement, are just two examples. Oh, and the ‘right to travel means I do not need a license’ movement…

    All very effective in their failures. And for good reasons, it runs against the laws, and statutes, and constitution.

    Even the foundation for the Common Law Grand Jury is based on a misinterpretation of a comment by Scalia. In fact, I find it hilarious that they overlook the effect of the ruling in the case “United States v. Williams (90-1972), 504 U.S. 36 (1992). ”

    So please identify colorful ‘deception’ before you go any further. As to your rules about how I should behave, that is based on a fallacy… A refusal to address or engage should not be seen as an admission of the validity of your position.

    Rodney is similarly confused as he sees the prosecutions response to his voluminous and irrelevant filings as evidence that he is on to something…

  4. NBC quoted words I wrote and then responds with NOPE. The problem with that accurate account of what actually happened on paper is that there is an obvious lack of understanding concerning the meaning of the words I wrote. The words I wrote are not connected well with the word NOPE. The criminals in the case in New York are named on the common law documents called writs. Those same named criminals add even more crimes to the list of crimes already documented on the common law writs. Those named criminals are those so called judges.

    Foolishness is one thing, abandoning victims while common law offers effective defense is criminal, not foolish, it is well behind foolish, it is criminal. Covering up for the criminals, by fabricating libelous false claims, especially given the weight of these crimes done by these criminals, is similarly criminal. The good news is that the crime of Libel is easily exposed and nullified, leaving the intended victims unharmed, and the liar will then be accurately accounted for as a liar, as the liar then invents even more lies in a foolish attempt to cover up the initial lies.

    As to the false statement concerning Federal common law, those who prefer accurate accounting instead of parroted or invented lies can read the official accurate accounting still reported on the official Web Site where The Bill of Rights records specific references to our common law.

  5. The criminals in the case in New York are named on the common law documents called writs

    They have no value really as they are nothing more than any other filing by a citizen or group of citizens. It’s well established under law that in principle there is no right to have a criminal statute enforced against a person.

    You can file a complaint and it may be investigated, but that is the fullest extent.

    You call me a liar but other than posturing you have shown nothing to counteract what I have said.

    You may believe you are right, and you may believe that my opinion is libelous because it disagrees with your position which I find particularly fascinating as you have ignored the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    Until you can do better than merely assert, I have to reject your claims as irrelevant and unsupported.

    So listen carefully. Common law may exist when statutory law has not overridden it. In case of the Grand Jury, the State laws have either done away with the grand jury or regulated it. At the Federal level, similarly, the legislature has implemented rules and statutes that do not leave a place for a ‘common law grand jury’.

    It’s not that hard…

  6. Your ‘writs’, better known as complaints are without any legal relevance. There is no legal way to enforce your complaints, and the complaints themselves do not appear to amount to much of anything.
    I have no problem that you get together and discuss with like-minded people your hopes and aspirations for our Nation, I have no problem with you petitioning under the first amendment. Of course, that does not mean that there is a legal foundation to your claims about the common law grand jury or the complaints you have raised.

    So before you start accusing anyone who disagrees with you of covering up, or crimes, why not at least pretend to make an effort to state your case or respond to my simple observations.

  7. As to not understanding your word, I appreciate that you hold to a different viewpoint, however, I see the actions as foolish and devoid of legal foundation.

    We shall see how the courts treat this matter. I can make some predictions. The court will refuse to take the NY
    “Common Law Grand Jury”‘s filings seriously as they lack standing. Good luck with your club’s attempts to have our legal system changed.

  8. I thought you were interested in a discussion, instead you make poorly supported accusations. I have no reason to further continue our interactions any further.

    Good luck with you club.

  9. Here’s a thought experiment, Mr. Kelley: Suppose instead of you “patriots” (actually anarchists and traitors), it was another type of group who thought they could form up “Common Law Grand Juries” to file their “writs” and accuse people of criminality; say, Muslims staking their claims on Sharia Law, or Communists, or pedophiles? How would you feel about that? Does allowing any group to simply declare itself a Court authority make any sense?

    Humans don’t see the big picture. (That’s a copier joke, son.)

Comments are closed.